Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Jan 2013 @ 7:25am
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
There are plenty of Catholic schools in the US that teach whatever they want to teach in science class.
And that's fine, however much I dislike it.
The First Amendment does prevent religion from being taught in public school science classes - since the public schools are run by the government. The same would apply for any type of standards that the government would implement regarding creationism that would apply to private schools.
I don't want any speech or religion censored or suppressed. I want discussion and debates about them. It is much easier to change the minds of people holding irrational beliefs if they are forced to confront them through discussion and open debate.
And I've said it before - but the only way I know to insure that I can say what I want, is to insure that everyone else can also say what they want. The only way to insure that I have the option to not believe in any form of god or gods is to make sure that everyone else has the option to believe or not beleive in whatever god or gods they want.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Jan 2013 @ 6:31am
Re: What money has to do here?
Yea, open source is nice, but we're talking about insignificant amount of money anyway.
If the money is so insignificant, can you imagine that Microsoft wouldn't throw a hissy fit if they discovered that Greece was using over 28,000 unlicensed copies of their operating systems?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Jan 2013 @ 11:48am
Re:
Nobody gave a flying fuck about copyright law until the internet arrived
That's an argument for the anti-copyright side, thanks.
The reason the average person didn't care about copyright length or draconian terms was two-part. Many of the worst features of current copyright law were still relatively new (automatic copyright as of the 1976 act for example) or hadn't come around yet (third party liability). But the big reason was that copyright did not impact the ordinary life of average people in the slightest.
Guess what? We no longer live in that world. Laws that were designed when it was prohibitively expensive to create and distribute content no longer function when anyone with an internet connection and a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware can write, compose, photograph, record, and then distribute that content to the entire world.
And worse than no longer functioning well, those laws are now preventing new innovations and new culture from being created. Is it any wonder that people now care about these obsolete laws?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jan 2013 @ 7:59am
Re: Re: Insult the judge?
Committing fraud on the courts is much, much worse than simply insulting a judge.
But that's the thing, insulting the judge only makes it worse. Continuing a fraud on the court after being called on it, while pissing off the one person that could be lenient to the mistake is sheer lunacy.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jan 2013 @ 7:24am
Insult the judge?
I don't claim to be some great legal mind, but insulting the judge so directly in your case doesn't seem to be a good way to win it. Or is Gibbs intentionally trying to provoke the judge into saying something he can then use to then show that the judge isn't impartial? Even that seems destined to failed miserably.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Dec 2012 @ 1:25pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if a pig had wings it could fly.
As it relates to this story, since the stream isn't infringing, it should be a dead simple finding that a link to it isn't infringing. It completely boggles my mind how anyone could possibly see otherwise.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Dec 2012 @ 12:30pm
Re: Re: Re:
Such inline linking can be contributory infringement under the Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com holding, and rightfully so.
If you analysis is correct, then Google image search is infringement.
Oh, look. You're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc.
"The court held that Google's framing and hyperlinking as part of an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use was highly transformative, overturning most of the district court's decision."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Dec 2012 @ 12:24pm
Re: Re: Re:
There are two parts.
It is extremely simple: The stream is legal. It makes no difference how someone gets to it, or who points them to it. Its all legal.
The 'it makes no sense' part is how anyone with two brain cells could possibly fall for such a twisted argument that some website that points someone to a perfectly legal stream is somehow infringing.
I'm not strictly familiar with how this radio station or the other website operate, but most music streams use one of a few common setups. All of these operate in standard ways, and as such, can be used by multiple web browsers and other applications - all you need is the specific URL of the stream. Given that, I'll list a few examples, and if it so simple, you should be easily able to tell me which are infringing.
1) Alice opens radio station website in standard web browser to listen to music stream. Is Alice infringing?
2a) Alice gives link to 1 to Bob. Is Alice infringing?
2b) Bob opens link from 2a. Is Bob infringing?
3a) Bob opens link to stream in music player app (Windows Media Player, WinAmp, iTunes, etc). Is end user infringing?
3b) Is maker of music player app infringing from 3a?
4) Alice tells Bob how to directly open stream in music player app. Is Alice infringing?
5) Alice build website (no ads) that links to radio station website. Is Alice infringing?
6) Alice builds website with ads that links to radio station website. Is Alice infringing?
7) Alice builds website (no ads) that embeds radio station stream. Is Alice infringing?
8) Alice build website with ads that embeds radio station stream. Is Alice infringing?
9) Alice build music player app that can link to stream, but also displays ads within the app. Is Alice infringing?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Dec 2012 @ 11:48am
Re:
They're using the content they didn't pay for to get eyes to their website so they can profit from the traffic. They're reaping where they have not sown.
So ISPs should be paying money to Youtube, right? ISPs are making a profit on providing a link to content they didn't put any money into.
Taxi companies need to pay to deliver customers to storefronts, too, right? They're profiting off delivering people to the stores.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Dec 2012 @ 9:50am
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, they were worried about a home RECORDER. Not a home PLAYER.
Yes, they were. Just like they were worried about cassette tapes and home taping. Just like they were worried about CD-Rs. Just like they were worried about DVD-Rs. Just like DVD jukeboxes, or breaking DVD encryption, mp3s, and user generated content sites, Youtube, streaming music and movies and Hulu, Aereo, or whatever the next dozen innovations they'll try to kill, tax, or control to no good end.
How many do we have to name before you get it?
Every single fucking time they have been proven completely and utterly wrong. Wrong about the facts. Wrong about the results. Wrong for the wrong reasons.
There is an elephant in the room and you keep trying to hand wave it away.
You have to be willfully blind not to see this. You're not stupid, Joe. But either you are intentionally ignoring things just because they don't suit your viewpoint, or because Mike is the messenger, or because you're naive. Take your pick.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 12:02pm
Re: Re: Re: So out of curiousity
If I got a letter from them, and had no knowledge of what they said I was downloading, I don't think I would ignore it.
I'd respond with a letter that indicated a Google search indicated numerous references to how their operation was a scam or illegally practicing law. Thus, I would demand more information on their organization to verify their accusation. I would also demand information on how they had identified me, as their method would seem to be significantly flawed - without more information I would be unable to provide a reasonable explanation of why it was flawed and had mistakenly identified me. And I would keep records of the communication, telling them so, and that I was prepared to retain legal counsel if necessary.
Again - I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice. If that wouldn't scare them off, then nothing would and you should start thinking about a decision to settle or to defend yourself in court.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 10:15am
Re: Re: Conversation
Agree. Violent crime in general has been trending down for the last ~30 years, and that's even more pronounced among youth/teens. It just doesn't seem so since we notice it more now that we're in a 24/7 media landscape that encompasses the entire country/world.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Dec 2012 @ 9:48am
Conversation
When I heard the NRA wanted to add to the conversation, I had hopes that someone over there had some sense. Guess that bird has flown, and they're just doing their usual 'blame someone else' along with some hand waving.
As far as video games, we have no evidence that seems to correlate to increased violence/crime, and we have some that suggests there is no link:
I support common-sense regulation of firearms that still allows citizens the rights to own and carry firearms for their own defense and legal uses. The real conversation should include how ~40% of firearm sales are done without background checks. The real conversation should include the absolutely horrendous state of our mental health system in this country, and the social stigma against even engaging with it. The real conversation should include the safe use and storage of these tools.
Instead it will end up being about banning some tiny subset of weapons that the gunmakers will quickly design around.
Google - and everyone in the world for that matter - can have my public key. They use that key to encrypt something. Once it is encrypted, the only way to decrypt it is with my private key. So long as I'm in full control of my private key, I don't have to worry about everyone knowing the public key, since that only allows them to encrypt something which only I can decrypt.
On the post: Journalists Cheering On Censorship Is A Form Of Hate Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
On the post: Journalists Cheering On Censorship Is A Form Of Hate Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
And that's fine, however much I dislike it.
The First Amendment does prevent religion from being taught in public school science classes - since the public schools are run by the government. The same would apply for any type of standards that the government would implement regarding creationism that would apply to private schools.
I don't want any speech or religion censored or suppressed. I want discussion and debates about them. It is much easier to change the minds of people holding irrational beliefs if they are forced to confront them through discussion and open debate.
And I've said it before - but the only way I know to insure that I can say what I want, is to insure that everyone else can also say what they want. The only way to insure that I have the option to not believe in any form of god or gods is to make sure that everyone else has the option to believe or not beleive in whatever god or gods they want.
On the post: Despite Financial Destruction, Greece Not Favoring Open Source Software
Re: What money has to do here?
If the money is so insignificant, can you imagine that Microsoft wouldn't throw a hissy fit if they discovered that Greece was using over 28,000 unlicensed copies of their operating systems?
On the post: Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
Re: Re:
If artists don't wish to participate in culture, then they don't need to release their work.
What's good for the goose...
On the post: Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re:
That's an argument for the anti-copyright side, thanks.
The reason the average person didn't care about copyright length or draconian terms was two-part. Many of the worst features of current copyright law were still relatively new (automatic copyright as of the 1976 act for example) or hadn't come around yet (third party liability). But the big reason was that copyright did not impact the ordinary life of average people in the slightest.
Guess what? We no longer live in that world. Laws that were designed when it was prohibitively expensive to create and distribute content no longer function when anyone with an internet connection and a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware can write, compose, photograph, record, and then distribute that content to the entire world.
And worse than no longer functioning well, those laws are now preventing new innovations and new culture from being created. Is it any wonder that people now care about these obsolete laws?
On the post: Prenda Lawyer Claims Judge 'Abhors' Copyright Holders After Judge Becomes Curious About Who Alan Cooper Really Is
Re: Re: Insult the judge?
But that's the thing, insulting the judge only makes it worse. Continuing a fraud on the court after being called on it, while pissing off the one person that could be lenient to the mistake is sheer lunacy.
On the post: Prenda Lawyer Claims Judge 'Abhors' Copyright Holders After Judge Becomes Curious About Who Alan Cooper Really Is
Insult the judge?
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As it relates to this story, since the stream isn't infringing, it should be a dead simple finding that a link to it isn't infringing. It completely boggles my mind how anyone could possibly see otherwise.
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re:
If you analysis is correct, then Google image search is infringement.
Oh, look. You're wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc.
"The court held that Google's framing and hyperlinking as part of an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use was highly transformative, overturning most of the district court's decision."
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re: Re: Re:
It is extremely simple: The stream is legal. It makes no difference how someone gets to it, or who points them to it. Its all legal.
The 'it makes no sense' part is how anyone with two brain cells could possibly fall for such a twisted argument that some website that points someone to a perfectly legal stream is somehow infringing.
I'm not strictly familiar with how this radio station or the other website operate, but most music streams use one of a few common setups. All of these operate in standard ways, and as such, can be used by multiple web browsers and other applications - all you need is the specific URL of the stream. Given that, I'll list a few examples, and if it so simple, you should be easily able to tell me which are infringing.
1) Alice opens radio station website in standard web browser to listen to music stream. Is Alice infringing?
2a) Alice gives link to 1 to Bob. Is Alice infringing?
2b) Bob opens link from 2a. Is Bob infringing?
3a) Bob opens link to stream in music player app (Windows Media Player, WinAmp, iTunes, etc). Is end user infringing?
3b) Is maker of music player app infringing from 3a?
4) Alice tells Bob how to directly open stream in music player app. Is Alice infringing?
5) Alice build website (no ads) that links to radio station website. Is Alice infringing?
6) Alice builds website with ads that links to radio station website. Is Alice infringing?
7) Alice builds website (no ads) that embeds radio station stream. Is Alice infringing?
8) Alice build website with ads that embeds radio station stream. Is Alice infringing?
9) Alice build music player app that can link to stream, but also displays ads within the app. Is Alice infringing?
On the post: Embedding And Linking Deemed Infringing In The Netherlands; Downloading... Not So Much
Re:
So ISPs should be paying money to Youtube, right? ISPs are making a profit on providing a link to content they didn't put any money into.
Taxi companies need to pay to deliver customers to storefronts, too, right? They're profiting off delivering people to the stores.
On the post: And, Once Again, Hollywood Is Making Tons Of Money At The Box Office
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, they were. Just like they were worried about cassette tapes and home taping. Just like they were worried about CD-Rs. Just like they were worried about DVD-Rs. Just like DVD jukeboxes, or breaking DVD encryption, mp3s, and user generated content sites, Youtube, streaming music and movies and Hulu, Aereo, or whatever the next dozen innovations they'll try to kill, tax, or control to no good end.
How many do we have to name before you get it?
Every single fucking time they have been proven completely and utterly wrong. Wrong about the facts. Wrong about the results. Wrong for the wrong reasons.
There is an elephant in the room and you keep trying to hand wave it away.
You have to be willfully blind not to see this. You're not stupid, Joe. But either you are intentionally ignoring things just because they don't suit your viewpoint, or because Mike is the messenger, or because you're naive. Take your pick.
On the post: Anti-Piracy Company Seeks Patent On Automated Copyright Trolling
Re: LOL
But I can still enjoy them beating the crap out of each other.
On the post: Prenda Law Accused Of Trying To Start Over Again Under A New Name
Re: Re: Re: So out of curiousity
I'd respond with a letter that indicated a Google search indicated numerous references to how their operation was a scam or illegally practicing law. Thus, I would demand more information on their organization to verify their accusation. I would also demand information on how they had identified me, as their method would seem to be significantly flawed - without more information I would be unable to provide a reasonable explanation of why it was flawed and had mistakenly identified me. And I would keep records of the communication, telling them so, and that I was prepared to retain legal counsel if necessary.
Again - I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice. If that wouldn't scare them off, then nothing would and you should start thinking about a decision to settle or to defend yourself in court.
On the post: NRA's Plan: If We Blame Video Games & Movies For Sandy Hook Massacre, Perhaps People Will Stop Blaming Guns
Re: Re: Conversation
On the post: NRA's Plan: If We Blame Video Games & Movies For Sandy Hook Massacre, Perhaps People Will Stop Blaming Guns
Conversation
As far as video games, we have no evidence that seems to correlate to increased violence/crime, and we have some that suggests there is no link:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/12/data-helps-rebut-the-violent-video-games-cause-shooti ngs-argument/
The graph is particularly telling:
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/shootinggraph.png
I support common-sense regulation of firearms that still allows citizens the rights to own and carry firearms for their own defense and legal uses. The real conversation should include how ~40% of firearm sales are done without background checks. The real conversation should include the absolutely horrendous state of our mental health system in this country, and the social stigma against even engaging with it. The real conversation should include the safe use and storage of these tools.
Instead it will end up being about banning some tiny subset of weapons that the gunmakers will quickly design around.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Claims It's Misunderstood: It's Really Just Trying To Help Everyone Sift Through And Find Good Patents
Re:
The lawyers will say when it involves billable hours.
On the post: Prenda Law Accused Of Trying To Start Over Again Under A New Name
Re: So out of curiousity
If you just get a threatening letter from the firm, you have more options.
On the post: Why Google Should Encrypt Our Email
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography
Google - and everyone in the world for that matter - can have my public key. They use that key to encrypt something. Once it is encrypted, the only way to decrypt it is with my private key. So long as I'm in full control of my private key, I don't have to worry about everyone knowing the public key, since that only allows them to encrypt something which only I can decrypt.
Next >>